Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 45, Local Legislative Option to Extend Term Limits via Petition Amendment (March 2002)
| California Proposition 45 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic State legislative elections |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Initiated constitutional amendment |
Origin |
California Proposition 45 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on March 5, 2002. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported this measure to provide for a local legislative option process in which voters of a state House or Senate district could petition the Secretary of State to allow their term-limited Representative or Senator to serve an extra four years. The local legislative option could be used one time per lawmaker. |
A "no" vote opposed this measure to provide for a local legislative option to allow term-limited Representatives or Senators to serve an extra four years. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 45 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,049,348 | 42.35% | ||
|
|
2,790,153 | 57.65% | ||
Measure design
If Proposition 45 had been approved, it would have provided for a local legislative option process in which voters of a state House or Senate district could petition the California Secretary of State to allow their term-limited Representative or Senator to serve an extra four years. The local legislative option could be used one time per lawmaker.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 45 was as follows:
| “ | Legislative Term Limits. Local Voter Petitions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
| ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- Counties would incur unknown costs to verify petition signatures, potentially up to several hundreds of thousands of dollars every other year on a statewide basis.
- The state would incur little or no costs to track the eligibility of re-election candidates.
Constitutional changes
| California Constitution |
|---|
|
| Preamble |
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI VII • VIII • IX • X • XA XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C XX • XXI • XXII XXXIV • XXXV |
If Proposition 45 had been approved, it would have:
- Added a new Section 21 to Article II.
- Added a new Section 22 to Article II.
The new Section 21 would have been as follows:
| Section 21
Local Legislative Option. Local legislative option is the power of the voters residing in an Assembly or Senate district to exercise an option to allow their term-limited state legislator to stand for re-election for an extended term(s) in office, not to exceed a total of four years, notwithstanding Article IV, Section 2(a) of this Constitution. (a) Local legislative option may be exercised only one time per lawmaker. |
The new Section 22 would have said:
| Section 22
(a) Exercise of the local legislative option is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition invoking the right of the people to re-elect a legislator who would otherwise be ineligible for re-election by reason of Article IV, Section 2(a). Proponents have 90 days to circulate petitions and must submit petitions for verification at least 30 business days prior to the first day candidates may file declarations of intention to become a candidate for legislative office. (b) A petition invoking local legislative option must be signed by electors of the district equal in number to 20 percent of the ballots cast for that office in the last general election for which the local legislative option is sought. (c) Only electors registered to vote in the district in which the legislator is serving at the time the petition is filed, or following a redistricting, in the district in which the local legislative option is sought, may sign the petition. (d) Legislators permitted to run under this section may run only in the district in which they are currently serving, or if that district is changed pursuant to redistricting, then in the successor district whose lines include the larger portion of the former district. (e) Local voters may exercise this option to extend the time that a legislator would otherwise be permitted to serve by a period of four years. (f) The petition must be in substantially the following form: We the undersigned registered voters of the ___ Assembly [or Senate] district hereby invoke our right pursuant to Article II, Section 21 of the California Constitution to vote for or against [here list the legislator by name] at the next election(s) for that office, but not to exceed a total of four years. Our reasons are as follows: [here set forth reasons in no more than 200 words] (g) Petitions shall be submitted to local election officers who shall certify the signatures to the Secretary of State in the same fashion as initiative petitions are certified. As soon as sufficient valid signatures are certified, the Secretary of State shall so advise local election officials, who shall place the name of the certified legislator on the ballot in the same fashion as if he or she were not subject to Article IV, Section 2(a). |
Support
The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot was sponsored by then-California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco)
Supporters
- President of the California Professional Firefighters Dan Terry[1]
- President of the Congress of California Senators Hank Lacayo[1]
- President of the California Nurses Association Kay McVay[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 43:[1]
| “ | Yes on 45! Protect term limits and Restore Decision
Making to Local Voters. Proposition 45 (The Term Limit Local Option Initiative) empowers the people to choose their own representative—TO THROW OUT THE SCOUNDRELS or return—for a maximum of 4 years—a single lawmaker whose ability and effectiveness benefits the people of that district. Term limits have brought a breath of fresh air to California government. Before the introduction of term limits, entrenched incumbents, awash in campaign contributions from special interest lobbyists, and immune to the wrath of the people in their districts, clung to power—election after election. Term limits forced these career politicians out of public office. But now, with California facing such enormous challenges, we need Proposition 45 to empower the people with the option of keeping their own representative. Proposition 45 would allow a few especially valued state lawmakers to run for an additional 4 years in office ONE TIME ONLY. This may be accomplished ONLY if constituents in the lawmaker’s district gather sufficient signatures to qualify the officeholder for the ballot. And then, ONLY if the majority of voters in that district vote to keep that individual. Firefighters say “Yes on 45.” Decisions made in Sacramento determine their ability to protect the public. Firefighters need at least a few legislators with enough life and legislative experience to deal with the complex and dangerous world in which we now live. Business leaders and Law Enforcement say “Yes on 45.” As our economy struggles to recover from the aftermath of September 11th and the terrorist assault on America, small business and law enforcement will be impacted by the difficult and complicated decisions that must be made in Sacramento. We need experienced lawmakers who are prepared to handle these complex problems. Keep term limits in place! But allow the voters the option to return a few experienced lawmakers who have the ability to protect the public health and safety in these difficult times. Yes on Proposition 45—Protect Term Limits, Restore Decision-Making Power to the People.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Former Mayor of Los Angeles Richard Riordan[1]
- President of the National Tax Limitation Committee Lewis K. Uhler[1]
- President of Stop the Politicians Edna Gonzalez[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 43:[1]
| “ | Proposition 45 is purposely designed to kill term limits. If passed, it will eliminate all reasonable limits on California politicians. And it will give free reign to the powerful special interests and lobbyists who already have too much influence in Sacramento. In order to keep term limits alive in California, vote NO on Proposition 45.
Ten years ago, the people of California suffered under a state government that was totally out of control. Powerhungry career politicians had a stranglehold on our state legislature. The politicians rigged the system so that they never faced any real competition—many of them consistently ran with no opposition at all. The same politicians served for 20, 30, even 40 years in one office. The people’s voice was effectively shut out of the legislative process—and of the state treasury. In response, California citizens voted for term limits on the state legislature. At the time, we knew that the only way to stop the career politicians was to require some rotation in office, some change in leadership. We were right about the need for term limits then, and we’re right today. Since the passage of term limits, electoral competition in California has increased dramatically. New people with new ideas are finally seeking office and getting elected. But term limits are still new. They have not yet had enough time to fully remove the old guard from power in Sacramento. And that’s why the career politicians and their special interest cronies are advancing Proposition 45. They will stop at nothing to preserve their own power. They spent many millions of dollars opposing term limits ten years ago, and they are spending millions more pushing Proposition 45 today. All for the purpose of maintaining their own personal power and overriding the people’s vote in favor of term limits. One look at Proposition 45’s list of financial supporters tells the story. Lobbyists, big oil companies, trial lawyers PACs, tobacco companies, energy industries, you name it. Just about everyone who has tens of millions of dollars in business interests in front of the politicians in Sacramento has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to this effort to kill term limits. These powerful special interests are not looking for “good government.” They’re looking for government for sale to the highest bidder. For the special interests, term limits are very expensive. Term limits mean that the big special interests cannot develop cozy relationships with legislators who will do their bidding year after year for 20 and 30 years. Under term limits, people with new ideas, people who are not beholden to the political bosses will get into office. Proposition 45 is nothing more than a scam. It suggests that it is only weakening term limits. In fact, it will destroy term limits by allowing lifelong politicians to escape the limits of current law. Do not be fooled by this anti-term limits scam. Vote NO on Proposition 45.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was placed on the ballot through a citizen initiative petition drive. To qualify for the ballot, 670,816 valid signatures were required.[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
